Karnataka

StateCommission

A/247/2018

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Madiwalappa - Opp.Party(s)

B.V.Vidyulatha

17 Apr 2023

ORDER

                                                                      Date of Filing :16.02.2018

Date of Disposal :17.04.2023

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:17.04.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL Nos.247/2018 and 248/2018

 

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension),

Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,

New Block No.10,

Behind Income Tax office,

Navanagar, Hubli – 580025.
(By Mrs B V Vidyulatha, Advocate)                                        Appellant

 

(Appellant is same in both the Appeals)

 

          -Versus-

 

1. Appeal No.247/2018

    Mr Madiwalappa,
    S/o Mr Somalingappa Doddawad,

    Aged about 65 years,

    R/at Mruthyunjaya Nagar,

    Bailhongal, Belgaum District
    (By Miss G Geeta Bai, Advocate)                                   Respondent

 

2. Appeal No.247/2018

    Mr Marigouda

    S/o Mr Gurupadagouda Sannagoudar,

    Aged about 58,

    R/at Tavaramall Halli,

    Savanur Tq.,

    Haveri District-581202

    (By Miss G Geeta Bai, Advocate)                                     Respondent                                           

         :COMMON ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

01.     These two Appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by the OP, aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2018 passed in Complaint No.80/2017 and 106/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (for short, the District Forum).

 

 

 

 

 

02.     Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent. Since none appeared on behalf of the Appellant, his arguments is taken as heard.

 

03.     The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, deemed it fit to allow the Complaint and directed the OP to re-calculate the Monthly Pension payable to the Complainants by giving weightage of two years, as per  Para 12 (3) r/w Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995  and also extend minimum assured benefits - both in respect of past and present service, with effect from the date of retirement of the Complainant, along with arrears of pension, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum as and when the arrears has become due and go on paying the pension at the revised rate, according to the rules as on the date of the retirement and to pay Rs.2,000/- to each of the Complainant towards cost of the litigation expenses and mental agony.

 

04.     Being aggrieved by the Order, OP is in Appeal interalia contending amongst other grounds that the District Forum erred in not considering the admitted fact that, since the Respondents/ Complainants retired at the age of 48 years, which is less than 58 years, hence, he is not entitled for an additional weightage of two years, as per Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995, amended with effect from 24.07.2009, which is applicable to the case of the Complainant. The District Forum erred in considering that the Complaint is filed within time, inspite of the pleading raised by Appellant that the Complaint is filed in the year 2017, complaining about deficiency in service in respect of monthly pension fixed on 17.03.2020, which is more than 7 years from the date of cause of action is erroneous. Thus Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.

 

05.     The observation of the District Forum in Para 9 of its Order, that the Complainants came to know about less pension in October 2015 and May 2017 and hence, the Complaint is filed in time. Thus, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Complaint filed before the District Forum is well within the period of limitation.

 

06.     On perusal of the Impugned Order, it is observed that the Complainants have joined the Employee Provident Fund Scheme, he contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and subsequently, they continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995. Complainants after retiring from their service, they came to know that there are errors in calculation of their entitled Monthly Pension and gave representation to the OP to rectify the same, but, OP did not rectify the mistakes committed in sanction of their entitled Monthly Pension and hence, they filed Complaints before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Per contra, OP pleaded that the Complainants had opted for early pension from 17.03.2010 and accordingly, their Pension has been reduced by 4% for every of shortfall in not reaching the age of 58, to become entitled for the Pensionary benefits.  The claim of Complainants duly processed in accordance with the provision of EPS 1995 and Pension has been paid regularly, as such there is no deficiency in service on his part.

 

07.     Let us examine the details of service particular of the Complainants, as per records produced, which is as under:

Appeal No.	Complaint No.	Date of birth	Date of entry into service	Date of retirement	Past service	Actual service	Age as on retire ment
247/2018	80/2017	01.07.1952	1983	31.03.2009	12	13	58
248/2018	106/2017	01.06.1960	1987	30.09.2008	08	13	50

 

Thus, it is observed from the contents of the above table that the Complainant in Appeal No.247/2018 retired on attaining the age of 58 years by rendering pensionable service of more than 20 years and he has complied with the condition as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995, hence, he is eligible for weightage of two years.

Likewise, Complainant in Appeal No.248/2018 retired from the service before attaining the age of superannuation, by rendering pensionable service of more than 20 years and he has complied with the condition as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood before 24.07.2009, hence, he is also eligible for weightage of two years.

          With regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension, it is seen that both the complainants retired from the service after 15.06.2007 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood after 15.06.2007. 

8.       Under the above circumstances, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Impugned Order passed by the District Forum is just and proper, however, awarding of interest @ 10% p.a is slightly on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeal is allowed in part and consequently, the Impugned Order dated 17.01.2018 passed in Complaint Nos.80/2017 and 106/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned.  The cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainant awarded by the District Forum shall also  remain un-disturbed and the Appellant is directed to comply with this Order within 60 days from the date of this order.

 

 

 

 

9.       The statutory deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

10.     Return the LCR forthwith to the District Commission.

11.     Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.247/2018 and copy thereof, in Appeal No.248/2018.

12.     Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                      President

*s